Recent transactions

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare the tool read-onlyais, so the description need not restate safety. It adds valuable behavioral details beyond annotations: results are newest-firsttas, items contain only ESPN player IDs without names, and player IDs include negative D/ST IDs.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by two terse but essential detail sentences about item contents and player ID semantics.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only list tool with one optional parameter)Skip, an output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly complete. The only small ambiguity is whether 'league activity' includes non-transaction events, though the tool name and transaction-ID focus resolve most of it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description does not explain the 'limit' parameter, and schema description coverage is 0%. However, the sole parameter is optional, self-explanatory, and fully constrained in the schema with a default, maximum, and exclusive minimum, so the gap is minor.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb ('Inspect'), a resource ('recent league activity'), and an explicit purpose ('find transaction ids for cancelling pending claims'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_matchups and cancel_waiver_claim, though 'league activity' is slightly broader than 'transactions'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives a clear use case: finding transaction IDs specifically for cancelling pending claims. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the connection to the cancel_waiver_claim sibling is strongly implied, giving enough contextual guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.